Skip to comments.Marines Were Disarmed for President Obama's Second Inaugural Parade
Posted on 02/12/2013 6:37:22 AM PST by Baynative
He's gutted their healthcare, plans to cut their pay and apparently, doesn't trust them either. David Codrea over at Gun Rights Examiner points out that Marines marching in President Obama's second inaugural parade recently were caring rifles without bolts, meaning they were removed.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
"In a sign of the nervousness surrounding Mr. Panettas trip, the Marines and other troops who were waiting in a tent for the defense secretary to speak were abruptly asked by their commander to get up, place their weapons M-16 and M-4 automatic rifles and 9-mm pistols outside the tent and then return unarmed. The commander, Sgt. Maj. Brandon Hall, told reporters he was acting on orders from superiors."
Not that they wouldn
t have been in any case, but don’t they have a show weapon for parades etc?
Like in flight training, for instance, jets don’t have weapons loaded.
Nothing they do surprises me anymore...
Freaking Marxist coward!
Wake up military... Your nothing but pawns in his world.
WOW. What an insult.
Not quite as bad as when they had to patrol the streets of Beirut without ammo.
Actually, it is a common practice by the Secret Service to have the bolts removed from the weapons. When President Bush visited us in Somalia, we had to remove the bolts from our weapons. (we kept them in our pockets.)
They’re carrying M14s which was the issued rifle when I entered the Corps in 1969. The M16 was issued in the combat zone at the time. I would think that these are parade rifles since they look more like the public would expect in a parade formation or drill event. The Marine Silent Drill Team still uses them I believe.
Now, why would they have the bolts removed? It could be because they don’t trust the troops. You can still obtain 7.62 rounds and there is no telling what stupid things a young marine might do.
It is very important that the left has two very mistaken ideas about the military (among its surfeit of other mistaken and horrible ideas).
The first is that military personnel are just ignorant thugs who are in the military because they are too stupid and violent to work in minimum wage jobs like digging ditches. In effect no different than violent thugs in prison.
Thus the left is utterly contemptuous of them, and, importantly, thinks that *anyone* could do what they do. They imagine they could just empty out the prisons, give the prisoners uniforms and guns, and they would be soldiers.
Their second very mistaken idea is that these “stupid thugs” in the military will always obey the orders given them, by just about anyone who pretends they have authority.
The recent, brief assertion, that all flag grade officers who said they would refuse orders to “fire on American citizens” have been relieved of duty, actually is in line with this mistaken leftist belief.
They assume that *anyone* can put on a general’s uniform, and the mindless drones that are their “subordinates” will obey them without question.
The left actually believes this nonsense. However, at the same time they are deeply paranoid about the military, thinking that it is a reckless and dangerous organization that could turn on the left like a wild animal.
So they also hate it and fear it, along with their contempt of it. They can barely conceal this hatred and fear at the best of times. Movies like “Seven Days in May” (1964) reflect what they really think.
I was in Coast Guard Boot Camp when we were ordered to march in LBJ’s State funeral in DC. We carried M16’s at sling arms with empty clips.
Those are M1 parade rifles. Chances are they have been deactivated for a generation or better. They may not even have bolts any longer. They may have chamber plugs welded in place as well. Many parade rifles do. They appear to have M1 bayonets fitted. I wonder if those were real or were rubber parade props? That detail would be telling.
Really? A military guy calling a magazine - a clip.
With all due respect, Sir, those are clearly M-1 Garands.
I marched in Nixon’s 1973 inaugural with an M1 parade rifle, including chamber plug and welded bolt. Bayonet was real.
Only an EVIL TYRANT would have something to fear from US Marines.
You’re right, I was looking at the bolt area and not the muzzle, so those are definitely parade rifles.
I just looked again and in that picture I can’t clearly see the muzzle. Both models are similar but looking again it still looks like an M14. Either way, the comments apply.
OK, looked closely at the video and the fixed bayonets threw me in the still photo; they are M1s.
That can't be true -- if that were true service members would vote Democrat.
In a perverse way, I find that to be a hopeful sign.
Beat me to it... The M-1 is most certainly not an M-14, even though they are related.
I am more concerned with those 8th and I Marines sloppy carriage of the rifles: There isn't a parallel line among those muzzles and the Color Guard in the photo looks like he has his rifle wrapped around his neck. I would not have put up with that level of drill proficiency when I was still in and the Gunny would have had some extra practice for those Marines.
Shoot (as a euphemism for sh**), the SS learned from Egypt’s assassination of Anwar Sadat.
They are looking a little shabby, but I could hardly blame them though based on the situation.
Their current CiC hates them more than even PDiC (Pants Dropper in Chief) clinton ever did.
When PDiC visited Baumholder Germany before the start of Operation Neverending Balkan Excursion (IFOR/SFOR) the M2A2 Bradley on display at the back of the parking lot where we were assembled didn’t have the coax installed, and the bolt was removed from the Bushmaster. The M1A1 Abrams also on display was stripped of it’s weapons and the main gun was rendered safe. We didn’t have weapons either.
I guess the giant sign near the main entrance that said “Welcome home draft dodger” really pissed him off especially since it was on private property. :D
Why shouldn't the town's cannon be operable? Doesn't the 2nd cite the reason of the state's own security [and liberty] as justification for the militia's existence? And isn't it the "right of the people" that is so recognized as having the right to arms? -- A town-cannon therefore makes much sense, as does "city AA-guns", and just imagine what would have happened to Obama if NYC had possessed city AA-guns when he buzzed the city.
Do you really want to have to store those rifles in the arms room and keep them accountable?
I have more issue with the policy on-base of depriving the general population of arms (forcing them to store personal arms in the armory).
IOW, they were sitting ducks. Expect to see more of this free target practice staged for our enemies.
There are clips for M1-carbines and M-16s. They fit on the magazine, you press the cartridges into the magazine and discard, or put the empty clip back in your pocket.
There is a small adapter to make the clip fit the magazine.
They disable commemorative cannons so they do not have to worry about some damn fool stealing them or monkeying with them.
Yes, I know thats the why, I merely question if it is more detrimental in the end than beneficial. It also has the built-in assumption that (a) people are defined by the lowest common denominator, and/or (b) people are not [and cannot be] mature, self-governing moral individuals [that is, eternal adolescence and never mature].
Sure there are. That is not what the poster was talking about though.
Sure there are. That is not what the poster was talking about though.
The poster was clearly using the term clip, when referring to a magazine.
That is a journalist’s mistake.